Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rolex Explorer II or Omega Seamaster?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DocDave
    replied
    Thanks gents.

    Leave a comment:


  • hornsup84
    replied
    I've had good experiences with DavidSW ( https://davidsw.com/ ) - bought my Rolex from him, smooth transaction, solid prices. It was (barely) used, under 6 months from an AD purchase, so was under warranty for a while still. If you're fine getting used vs. brand spankin new, his site is worth visiting once in a while to see what's come in stock. I understand he's also opening to ordering new watches for you, and gives reasonable pricing on those, but no personal experience doing that with David.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    All my new Rolexes have been purchased from Jomashop. They come without any warranty card, not even a blank one, only a manual. I find they are ok to buy from and have the best selection and pricing for an online dealer, but everything I've heard about their warranty work is that it seriously blows. Of course, the amount I've saved buying from Joma vs an AD is typically well over $800 - which is about what I'd pay out of pocket for full service at a Rolex Service Center. So my thought is I will take the savings now and risk that I may have to use most of it to repair the watch if any issues with it arise. So far, however, none of the probably dozen watches (including the Rolexes) I've bought from Joma have exhibited any problems.

    But, Rolex ADs are currently offering 5-year warranties so if you aren't willing to take a small gamble like I am, and you want the shiny warranty card with your name on it and everything, I think it may be worth it to go through a local AD if you can. I wanted to buy my most recent from an AD and actually made a four hour round trip to shop there but they did not have the model I wanted in-stock and could not give me an estimated restock date unless I put down the money to special-order it (which I didn't want to do, since part of the appeal of buying from the AD was the ability to try the watch on before I bought it). So if you use an AD, maybe call ahead of time to make sure they have the models you want to see in-stock.

    Leave a comment:


  • DocDave
    replied
    So anyone have any online Rolex dealers they recommend? Or conversely dealers to avoid?

    Anyone dealt with Bob's Watches or Bernard Watch Co.? Each company seems to get mixed reviews on WuS and elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by JBarwick View Post
    I like the Tudor Chronograph that was released. I like the simplicity of a 2 subdial chrono though they went heavy on the font.
    The BB Chrono falls flat for me. Looks like it was cobbled together from a spare parts box after some modder took apart a regular BB and a cheap Daytona homage.

    Maybe it will grow on me but I would have rather seen an updated Heritage Chrono with the new in-house movement. Or something that had a bit more Paul Newman Daytona flair to it, if they're aping Daytonas anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • DocDave
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    I'm not a fan of most of Omega's current lineup but those '57 LEs from Baselworld
    Meh. I'm not really a fan of them. Seems like Omega is trying to cash in on the vintage market and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Something about it kind of rubs me the wrong way. Anyway. I'm sure they will sell a boat load of the those watches.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBarwick
    replied
    I like the Tudor Chronograph that was released. I like the simplicity of a 2 subdial chrono though they went heavy on the font.

    Everyone kept thinking Red/Black GMT but the all black ceramic came out in 2005 and the blue/black game out in 2013 so we have a few years for that. Also it is apparently still hard to find a blue/black GMT and forget about ever seeing a SS Daytona unless you know someone or get lucky when a shipment arrives.

    Also....that damn faux patina on the Omega's bothers me but offering those 3 watches as a box set is bound to sell a few.

    Leave a comment:


  • hornsup84
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    No 'pinion on the new YM. It's not my taste (or probably most people's taste) but, as with most bejeweled watches, I imagine I am not the target audience.

    I am a tiny bit disappointed that the rumored steel YM with ceramic bezel turned out to be just a rumor. I actually really liked the case shape and feel of the YM I tried on in-store a while back, but the blingy platinum bezel insert is a no-go. A steel YM with ceramic bezel insert could have converted me back to bezeled Rolex watches.
    A fair point on the rainbow bejeweled version. The steel/ceramic would have been cool, agreed. I have a friend who has an older platinum dial YM and I was surprised how much I liked it when I was in the market for a sports Rolex. It was a bit blingy relative to my personality, so I passed and went with the SD4k and I'm glad I did. I also really liked the rhodium dial they came out with most recently with the light blue.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by hornsup84 View Post
    Ha, maybe so. That means I should stop beating the shit out of it wearing it 24/7; after all, a durable sports watch is meant to be pampered in hopes of a resale in decades' time, right? I don't really mind that they're getting rid of it, like that it'll likely be even more rare to see other SDs (NYC at least is a sea of Subs (some green), with some GMTs and DJs mixed in). I like the watch I bought, just would prefer if Rolex wasn't playing into what seems to be a fading fad, which seems uncharacteristic.

    Also, just an obligatory note on the rainbow bezel YM. YuckMaster, amirite?
    No 'pinion on the new YM. It's not my taste (or probably most people's taste) but, as with most bejeweled watches, I imagine I am not the target audience.

    I am a tiny bit disappointed that the rumored steel YM with ceramic bezel turned out to be just a rumor. I actually really liked the case shape and feel of the YM I tried on in-store a while back, but the blingy platinum bezel insert is a no-go. A steel YM with ceramic bezel insert could have converted me back to bezeled Rolex watches.

    Leave a comment:


  • hornsup84
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    On the bright side if you ever need to bribe your way out of a war zone... I suspect you may see a nice boost in the resale value of your SD. The SD 4000 is gonna get scarce pretty quick after just 2-3 years in production. 30 years from now, maybe the 40mm SD 4000 will be a rare collectible.

    (That was my most disjointedly written post in a while. This is your brain on five hours of drafting testimony for a legislative hearing.)
    Ha, maybe so. That means I should stop beating the shit out of it wearing it 24/7; after all, a durable sports watch is meant to be pampered in hopes of a resale in decades' time, right? I don't really mind that they're getting rid of it, like that it'll likely be even more rare to see other SDs (NYC at least is a sea of Subs (some green), with some GMTs and DJs mixed in). I like the watch I bought, just would prefer if Rolex wasn't playing into what seems to be a fading fad, which seems uncharacteristic.

    Also, just an obligatory note on the rainbow bezel YM. YuckMaster, amirite?

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by hornsup84 View Post
    I also just saw that the new SD has a glossy dial vs. the matte dial. Such a shame.

    Those Oris both are baller, that company has been on a roll the last few years with some nice offerings at reasonable (relatively speaking) prices.
    On the bright side if you ever need to bribe your way out of a war zone... I suspect you may see a nice boost in the resale value of your SD. The SD 4000 is gonna get scarce pretty quick after just 2-3 years in production. 30 years from now, maybe the 40mm SD 4000 will be a rare collectible.

    (That was my most disjointedly written post in a while. This is your brain on five hours of drafting testimony for a legislative hearing.)

    Leave a comment:


  • hornsup84
    replied
    I also just saw that the new SD has a glossy dial vs. the matte dial. Such a shame.

    Those Oris both are baller, that company has been on a roll the last few years with some nice offerings at reasonable (relatively speaking) prices.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Meanwhile Oris is hittin' it outta the park with these:


    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/or...17-introducing


    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/or...te-introducing

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by hornsup84 View Post
    Racing Chrono does look neat. I'm also not a huge fake patina fan--if you want patina, get a vintage watch that will actually develop more over time. Buying a brand new watch that looks like patina but isn't actually patina doesn't seem like the right answer IMO. I do like the looks of the '57 lineup (as well as the previous 300 line, particularly the blue).

    As an SD4k owner, I don't get the move by Rolex. If you want to upsize the SD, fine (but why tho), but why not split the Sub (40mm) and DSSD (44mm) at 42mm? The red text is cool, but addition of the upsized cyclops--while getting rid of the regular sized, no cyclops SD as opposed to just adding this new version--seems like a mistake unless you're going to add another reasonable-sized no-cyclops bezeled sports watch to your lineup. My main two reasons for getting an SD instead of a Sub was the better proportioned case (i.e., non-fat lugs) and no cyclops, which balanced out the thicker case. The 43mm takes the SD out of the territory where you can really wear it with anything but casual attire (if you subscribe, as I do, to permitting Subs/SDs with office attire). Long story short, I'm glad I have my SD4k and can't imagine 'upgrading' to the new one.
    Someone over on WUS just commented that they think the new SD is not so much an "update" to the SD as it is Rolex's answer to those who have been wanting Rolex to update the Sub to respond to the oversized watch trend. You get the traditional Rolex diver style, the signature Rolex-y cyclops, the oversized 43mm case, the comical amount of WR that no one who buys a modern Rolex will ever actually use, all without touching the existing Submariner lineup.

    Kind of depressing if true, and seems to be a break with Rolex's steadfast (and IMO, rather admirable, if occasionally irritating) refusal to be "reactionary" to market trends in terms of design choices.

    O well... like I said, the SD was never really on my radar of watches to buy so it doesn't affect me either way.

    Leave a comment:


  • hornsup84
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    My main quibble with the '57 Trilogy (as I guess they're being called) is the faux patina lume. I'd prefer crisp white lume. But I suppose you can't have everything in life.

    Really like the new Speedmaster Racing Master Chronometers as well, but at 44mm they are not in my purchasing future.

    I'm pretty underwhelmed with Rolex and Tudor's Baselworld offerings. No big deal for me on the Rolex end since Rolex is pretty well known for the glacial pace of its design updates and new releases (and after all the new Rollies I've bought recently I would probably be more than a bit upset with myself if they had released a new must-have). But I am a little disappointed to see Tudor just throwing out a bunch of (not particularly interesting) Black Bay variations.

    The SeaDweller has never been on my lust list so I don't have strong feelings about the new model, but I was surprised to see that they bumped up the size and added the cyclops. Seems like Rolex has done a reasonably good job resisting the oversized watch trend and is arguably ahead of the curve now that the oversized trend is fading and smaller watches are coming back into style. So the upsize feels like a step backward IMO. The cyclops is just a baffling design choice, since it seems to me that most people who pick the SD over the Sub do so because they want a date but no cyclops.
    Racing Chrono does look neat. I'm also not a huge fake patina fan--if you want patina, get a vintage watch that will actually develop more over time. Buying a brand new watch that looks like patina but isn't actually patina doesn't seem like the right answer IMO. I do like the looks of the '57 lineup (as well as the previous 300 line, particularly the blue).

    As an SD4k owner, I don't get the move by Rolex. If you want to upsize the SD, fine (but why tho), but why not split the Sub (40mm) and DSSD (44mm) at 42mm? The red text is cool, but addition of the upsized cyclops--while getting rid of the regular sized, no cyclops SD as opposed to just adding this new version--seems like a mistake unless you're going to add another reasonable-sized no-cyclops bezeled sports watch to your lineup. My main two reasons for getting an SD instead of a Sub was the better proportioned case (i.e., non-fat lugs) and no cyclops, which balanced out the thicker case. The 43mm takes the SD out of the territory where you can really wear it with anything but casual attire (if you subscribe, as I do, to permitting Subs/SDs with office attire). Long story short, I'm glad I have my SD4k and can't imagine 'upgrading' to the new one.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X